COCA-COLA FEMSA PH VS.

BSFUIO-ALU Case Digest

COCA-COLA FEMSA PH VS. BACOLOD SALES FORCE UNION-CONGRESS OF INDEPENDENT
ORGANIZATION-ALU G.R. NO. 220605 

DOCTRINE: Courts should not shirk from exercising their power to review, where under applicable laws
and jurisprudence, such power may be rightfully exercised," as in this case. ART. 9 NCC No judge or
court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws. 

FACTS: Petitioner is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of non-nonalcoholic beverages.

Thereafter, Cosmos ceded its sales functions to petitioner which resulted in the integration of a number of
Cosmo’s salesmen (Cosmos integrees) into petitioner’s workforce as route salesmen. Subsequently, by
adopting a route-to-market system abolished the route salesman position and replaced by account
developer position. Through internal selection process, the Cosmos salesmen’s position were designated
as ADs. However, petitioner hired new ADs with a higher basic monthly pay and benefits occupying the
same position, job description and functions. Aggrieved by the difference in treatment, respondent the
recognized CB agent submitted its concerns to the grievance machinery contending the same. In its
defense, Cosmo argued that the fixing of hiring rates is a management prerogative. The Panel of
Voluntary Arbitrators (VA) ruled that there is a disparity in the wages between the two and directed the
petitioner to readjust their salaries. CA denied the petition for review of petitioner on the ground that VA
decision had attained finality. 

ISSUE: WON the CA can deny its power to judicial review the said case 

RULING: No. The Voluntary Arbitrator’s judgments or final orders which are declared final by law are not
so exempt from judicial review when so warranted. "Any agreement stipulating that 'the decision of the
arbitrator shall be final and unappealable' and 'that no further judicial recourse if either party disagrees
with the whole or any part of the arbitrator's award may be availed of' cannot be held to preclude in proper
cases the power of judicial review which is inherent in courts." The Court sees the prima facie
reasonableness of petitioner's asseverations and finds that the merits of its case, based on such
argumentation, properly warrant judicial review. As such, the CA should look into the soundness of the VA
rulings in relation to the nuances averred, particularly, the impact of the differences in the selection
processes applied and relevant qualifications between the Cosmos integrees and the newly-hired ADs.
Moreover, the CA ought to determine the proper application of the "equal pay for equal work" principle
vis-a-vis the business decision of an employer to adopt a more competitive compensation scheme in light
of the demands in human resource. Thus, borrowing the language in Chung Fu Industries (Phils.) Inc. v.
CA - which similarly involved a restrictive stipulation on appeal from an arbitral award the Court finds that
the CA erred in refusing "to look into the merits of this case, despite prima facie showing of the existence
of grounds warranting judicial review," which, thus, "effectively deprived petitioner of the opportunity to
prove or substantiate its allegations."